Third Molar Coronectomy vs Total Removal in Second Molar Periodontal Healing.

OBJECTIVES:The objective of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the periodontal healing at the distal of the adjacent second molar after coronectomy or surgical removal and the surgical morbidities of the 2 techniques. METHODS:This is a pilot study of a split-mouth randomised clinical trial comparing the periodontal healing of the adjacent second molar after coronectomy or total removal of lower third molars, which was registered with the University of Hong Kong Clinical Trial Centre as HKUCTR-2948 on 21 February 2020. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Changes in the bone level from the cemento-enamel junction, periodontal probing depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) at the distal of the adjacent second molar were compared. Surgical morbidities in terms of pain, infection, neurologic deficit, root exposure, and need for second surgery for removal were assessed. RESULTS:Forty patients (22 male, 18 female) with mean age of 26.7 years were evaluated at 6 months postoperatively. Both coronectomy and total removal groups demonstrated statistically significant reduction in PPD and CAL. There was an alveolar bone gain of 1.28 ± 0.88 mm in the coronectomy group and 1.13 ± 0.73mm in the control group, which was statistically significant (P < .001 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS:Early findings show the periodontal healing at the adjacent second molar of coronectomy was as good as that of total removal of lower third molar. There were no differences in terms of surgical morbidities between both groups.